The DaVinci Code: a Genealogist's View

Arlene Eakle is a professional genealogist. She also holds a PhD in English History with a minor in Colonial American History. Her PhD dissertation was entitled Antiquaries and the Writing of Local History in England, 1550-1800. During her studies, she read and analyzed hundreds of books written by English writers during those years. The antiquarians wrote about The Knights Templars, The Isle of Thanet, and the Priory of Sion and its many chapels, as well as about many related topics. These books were all written and published long before Dan Brown's now popular book, The DaVinci Code.

Arlene's research as a historian years before the topic became popular plus her current skills as a professional genealogy researcher give her insights that are quite different from the recent critics of the DaVinci Code. She refutes some of the recent claims and cites evidence not mentioned publicly for hundreds of years.

Arlene has now published her views and tells how she came to her conclusions. You can find this interesting article on Arlene's genealogy blog at http://www.arleneeakle.com/wordpress.

Comments

[boeufdaisy]

It's really quite shocking that a woman who is a professional genealogist would suggest that there's any truth to be discerned in the purported ancestry of Michael Lafosse (aka "Prince Michael of Albany"), who recently fled the British Isles for his native Belgium, fleeing the ignominy of having his British Citizenship revoked because it was obtained with a forged birth certificate. His "genealogy" is a web of falsehoods and forgeries.

It's also a little alarming to see a genealogist make the fundamental mistake of assuming that because two things have the same name, they are the same entity. You wouldn't want someone who confuses the Da Vinci Code's "Priory of Sion" with a seventeenth century organization to research your John Smiths for you.

Those similarly misled by Lafosse's "The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland" and other prevarications should take a look at his article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Michael_of_Albany) or Chivalric orders (http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/stuart.htm)

[Betsy]

Similarly, I'm not too sure about the wisdom of citing Wikipedia as an authoritative source to prove anything. Wikipedia is a popular culture phenomenon, but entries written by consensus of all who care enough to contribute can hardly be considered legitimate scholarship.

[Luther Olson]

". . . shocking that a woman who is a professional genealogist would suggest that there's any truth to be discerned. . . "
Why is it so difficult to comprehend the concept of a historical novel? I suspect because they never read The DiVinci Code or any of the many excellent reviews.
May I suggest another Dan Brown historical novel, ANGELS & DEMONS. But before opening the book please remember IT'S A NOVEL, IT'S A NOVEL, IT'S A NOVEL.

In a similar way, there are those who get their genealogy back to the middle ages and beyond--to a time when myth begins to be part of the story. The problem here is to try to determine fact from myth. Also, genealogy was always important to the early Jews, and one finds a line from Adam and Eve down to about 500 years before Christ.

But if you are interested in things like this, it isn't the same as recording and documenting your Great-Grandmother Mina at the county court house. Of my eight great-grandparents, only one goes back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve. The other seven all go back to the Great Ice Abyss, location of the creation of the Norse world, all the Norse gods and their descendants, like this latter-day Viking.

[boeufdaisy]

Of course, Betsy, no one should rely on one source. Which is why I posted two (of the many available) that stand counter to the absurd claims of "Prince" Michael. If you'll bother to visit the Wikipedia article, I think you will find it all laid out there very nicely; by all means, if you simply have a knee-jerk reaction to "Wikipedia", visit the other site.

Simply put, if your genealogist thinks that "Prince" Michael's genealogy could possibly be accurate, you need a new genealogist.

"Lines back to Adam & Eve" are perhaps of interest to some people, but one thing they are not is genealogy.

Though I suspect a belief in such lines correlates well with belief in false assertions of royal descent.

[Luther Olson]

We can all rest better tonight knowing that there is a self-appointed authority who decides what is and what is not "genealogy." However, Boeuf, you criticize Arlene Eakle for thinking that her findings are truely historical, and when I pointed out some examples of early genealogy that were obviously not historical, you also critized that. One gets the feeling you have a need that isn't being met.

A suggestion, before accusing others of "belief in false assertions of royal descent," it may be a good idea for you to be aware of their notes and sources. You may be very surprised. And now you all will be pleased to know that for me this is the end of this string!

[boeufdaisy]

Well, Luther, apparently unlike you, I think standards and accuracy are important, and if Ms. Eakle meets yours, I suppose you will have the genealogy you desire.

I'm afraid I missed your examples.

I'm sure we all have needs that aren't being met, and quite sure you have no idea of what mine might be. I can't really see the relevance of that here in any case. One need in a genealogy is accuracy, and one need in a genealogist is an ability to weigh and evaluate evidence. I would not be confident of objaining an accurate genealogy from someone who believes the Priory of Sion depicted in fiction is an ancient organization, or that "Prince" Michael's fraudulent genealogy is real. It is (I will repeat myself) frankly astonishing that someone whose professional standing must of necessity be based in some measure on her accuracy would willingly associate herself (and publicly!) with such claims.

By the way, apologies to all for the improper links above (somehow the closing parentheses was adde to the link.

Here they are again, with additional sites touching on "Prince" Michael's imposture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Michael_of_Albany
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/stuart.htm
http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/lafosse.htm
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/lafosse.htm
http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/lafosse/lafosse.html

[Nat Taylor]

Well, the hoaxster / fantasist Michel Lafosse already fled Scotland by 23 July, before Eakin posted on her blog that he lived there. And it really is naive for anyone with historical or genealogical credentials to show any enthusiasm for the absurd genealogy first propounded by the 20th-century Priory of Sion hoaxsters and publicized by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln's 1982 book _The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail_ (later adopted wholesale by the novel _Da Vinci Code_). For a REAL "genealogist's view" of this hypothesis see the reviews of _The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail_ by Robert C. Anderson and David H. Kelley, both fellows of the American Society of Genealogists, in the journal _The Genealogist_ 2 (1992), 249-263.

[Tim]

It's funny, I read Arlene Eakle's article and found no list of sources, only her claim that they exist. Her rather naive accepting that anything she may have found concerning a Priory of Sion proves Dan Brown's claims makes her completely untrustworthy to me.

I would like to direct you to the web site http://priory-of-sion.com/dvc/newage.html, which contains the following information:

"– it was during this period of time – the early 1960s – that Pierre Plantard began claiming that the Priory of Sion originated in the Crusader period Jerusalem – claiming a link between his Priory of Sion and the religious order of the Abbey de Notre Dame du Mont Sion (the history of this latter religious order is well documented and it had no links with Plantard’s 1956 society, dying-out during the seventeenth century)."

That site has a great deal of information about the Priory of Sion latched onto by Dan Brown, and others.

In my opinion, The DaVinci Code isn't even a good book. It is not well written, not well paced, and not remotely interesting. It is slow and boring. What is it with the lesser authors that makes them scatter French words and phrases needlessly though-out any novel that takes place in France?

And for those who claim it is just a novel, remember that Dan Brown makes the claim that 3 things are true:
1. That the Knights Templar were real, which is true.
2. That the Priory of Sion was real, which is false.
3. That all descriptions of art and architecture are accurate, which is false. (For instance, the pyramid entrance to the Louvre does not contain 666 panes of glass but 673. This is not-so-easily found on the official web site: http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673458526&CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673458526&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500938&bmUID=1154986333040&bmLocale=en )
Dan Brown still claims the Priory of Sion is real and that the genealogies in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail are accurate.

Tim

[BOSUN]

I have been searching the web for any comment on Laurence Gardner now that Prince Michael of Albany has been unmasked. The European Council of Princes also seems to be the result of Michael Lefooss' imagination but Gardner must know the real story.
Has Gardner made any statement on any of these revelations.